alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PEDRO SANTOS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50337

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01378-W

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Santos appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

FILED

SEP 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50337

we affirm.

The government contends that Santos’s appeal should be dismissed based on

the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. Because the district court did not discuss

the appeal waiver during the change of plea hearing, we decline to enforce it. See

United States v. Arellano-Gallegos, 387 F.3d 794, 796-97 (9th Cir. 2004).

Santos contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

explain adequately the sentence imposed, in that it did not specifically explain why

it was adopting a 16-level enhancement for Santos’s prior drug trafficking offense. 

Our precedent does not require the district court to explain why it is adopting the

calculations set forth in the Guidelines. Although the district court imposed a 16-

level enhancement, it granted a four-level fast track departure, rather than the twolevel departure recommended by the government and contemplated by the plea

agreement. The district court explained why it was imposing the additional

departure, and why it did not find persuasive Santos’s arguments for a downward

variance from the reduced Guidelines range. Its explanation of the sentence was

plainly sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

Santos also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the 16-level enhancement for his prior aggravated felony made the sentence longer
3 11-50337

than necessary for someone with his background. The 51-month sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007).

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 622

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

#### § 622.24 [Reserved]
# Map            Tajikistan.
§ 510.6 Public participation. ( a ) All committee meetings, or portions of meetings, that are open to the public shall be held at a reasonable time and at a place that is reasonably accessible to the public. A meeting room shall be selected which, within the bounds of the resources and facilities available, affords space to accommodate all members of the public who reasonably could be expected to attend.
( b ) Any member of the public shall be permitted to file a written statement with the committee, either by personally delivering a copy to the Chairperson, or by submitting the statement by mail to the Marine Mammal Commission Offices at the address indicated in the notice of meeting. Such statements should be received at least one week in advance of the scheduled meeting at which they are expected to be considered by the committee.
( c ) Opportunities will ordinarily be afforded to interested persons to speak to agenda items during that portion of the open meeting during which that item is to be considered by the committee, subject to such reasonable time limits as the committee may establish, and consideration of the extent to which the committee has received the benefit of comments by interested persons, the complexity and the importance of the subject, the time constraints under which the meeting is to be conducted, the number of persons who wish to speak during the meeting, and the extent to which the statement provides the committee with information which has not previously been available and is relevant to its decision or other action on that subject. Interested persons may be required to serve reasonable notice of their intentions to speak so that the committee may assess whether procedures and scheduling for the meeting can be adjusted to accommodate large numbers of participants.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V109 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V109

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART II — THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — JUSTICE - Article II-109 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0052 - 0052 *

Article II-109

Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national law or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of a criminal offence, the law provides for a lighter penalty, that penalty shall be applicable.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles recognised by the community of nations.

3. The severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence.

--------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5145 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5145

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of 
 foreign feedstocks for purposes of the clean fuel production credit, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2024

Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Ricketts, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. 
  Fischer, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms. Smith) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of 
 foreign feedstocks for purposes of the clean fuel production credit, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Farmer First Fuel Incentives Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN FEEDSTOCKS FOR CLEAN FUEL PRODUCTION 
              CREDIT.

    (a) Prohibition on Foreign Feedstocks.--Section 45Z(f)(1)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) in clause (i)(II)(bb), by striking ``and'' at the end,
            (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``, and'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(iii) such fuel is derived from a 
                        feedstock which was produced or grown in the 
                        United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to transportation fuel sold after December 31, 2024.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF CLEAN FUEL PRODUCTION CREDIT.

    Section 45Z(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2027'' and inserting ``December 31, 2034''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 665.2 Relation to other laws.

NMFS recognizes that any state law pertaining to vessels registered under the laws of that state while operating in the fisheries regulated under this part, that is consistent with this part and the FEPs implemented by this part, shall continue in effect with respect to fishing activities regulated under this part.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4187 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.01

                            SUMMIT SECURITIES, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
                 TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

     The ratio of adjusted earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock
dividends was computed using the following tabulations to compute adjusted
earnings and the defined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends.

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                    YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30
                               ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2001            2000          1999         1998         1997
                               -----------     -----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
<S>                            <C>             <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>
Income (loss) before
  extraordinary item.........  $(2,490,714)    $ 4,082,239   $2,814,828   $2,524,027   $1,851,240
Add:
Interest.....................    9,286,859       6,886,427    5,856,249    4,778,443    4,325,528
Taxes on income..............   (2,605,452)      1,462,272      529,430      544,034      126,905
                               -----------     -----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
Adjusted earnings............    4,190,693      12,430,938    9,200,507    7,846,504    6,303,673
                               ===========     ===========   ==========   ==========   ==========
Preferred stock dividend
  requirements...............    2,549,849     $ 2,025,155   $  838,356   $  498,533   $  446,560
Ratio factor of income after
  provision for income taxes
  to income before provision
  for income taxes...........         100%              73%          84%          82%          94%
Preferred stock dividend
  factor on pretax basis.....    2,549,849       2,750,572      996,027      605,971      477,196
Fixed charges Interest.......    9,286,859       6,886,427    5,856,249    4,778,443    4,325,528
                               -----------     -----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
Fixed charges and preferred
  stock dividends............  $11,836,708     $ 9,636,999   $6,852,276   $5,384,414   $4,802,724
                               ===========     ===========   ==========   ==========   ==========
Ratio of adjusted earnings to
  fixed charges and preferred
  stock dividends............             (1)         1.29         1.34         1.46         1.31
                                               ===========   ==========   ==========   ==========
</Table>

---------------

(1) Earnings were insufficient to meet fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends by approximately $7.6 million for the year ended September 30,
    2001.
# EUR-Lex - 12002E288 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E288

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Six: General and Final Provisions - Article 288 - Article 215 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 215 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0147 - 0147 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0294 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0075 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Six: General and Final Provisions

Article 288

Article 215 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 215 - EEC Treaty

Article 288

The contractual liability of the Community shall be governed by the law applicable to the contract in question.

In the case of non-contractual liability, the Community shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties.

The preceding paragraph shall apply under the same conditions to damage caused by the ECB or by its servants in the performance of their duties.

The personal liability of its servants towards the Community shall be governed by the provisions laid down in their Staff Regulations or in the Conditions of employment applicable to them.
#### §§ 95.2143-95.2159 [Reserved]
§ 95.971 CBRS emission types. Each CBRS transmitter type must be designed such that its capabilities are in compliance with the emission type rules in this section. ( a ) *Permitted emission types.* CBRS transmitter types must transmit AM voice emission type A3E or SSB voice emission types J3E, R3E or H3E, and may also transmit FM voice emission type F3E.
( b ) *SSB requirements.* Each CBRS transmitter type that transmits emission type J3E, R3E, or H3E must be capable of transmitting only the upper sideband with suppressed, reduced or full carrier, respectively, but may additionally be capable of transmitting only the lower sideband, with suppressed, reduced or full carrier, respectively.
[82 FR 41104, Aug. 29, 2017, as amended at 86 FR 53565, Sept. 28, 2021]
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

Abraxas Petroleum Corporation

San Antonio, Texas

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-127480, 333-132971, and 333-143728) and Form S-8 (No. 333-17375, 333-17377, 033-81416, 333-55691, 333-74592, 333-74614 and 333-135032) of Abraxas Petroleum Corporation of our reports dated March 17, 2008 except for Note 16 which is as of August 11, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial        statements, and the effectiveness of Abraxas Petroleum Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Number 2.

 

/s/ BOD Seidman, LLP

 

Dallas, Texas

August 21, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 184 (Friday, September 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55548-55549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8106]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Performance Review Board Members

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) (4) agencies are 
required to publish a notice in the Federal Register of the appointment 
of Performance Review Board (PRB) members. This notice updates the VA 
Performance Review Board of the Department of Veterans Affairs that was 
published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2005 (Vol. 70, No. 
204).

DATES: Effective Date: September 22, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlotte Moment, Office of Human 
Resources Management (052B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8165.

VA Performance Review Board (PRB)

R. Allen Pittman, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and 
Administration (Chairperson)
Thomas G. Bowman, Chief of Staff
Sharon K. Barnes, Deputy Chief of Staff (Alternate)

[[Page 55549]]

Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans 
Benefits Administration
Michael Walcoff, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Operations, 
Veterans Benefits Administration (Alternate)
Gerald M. Cross, M.D., Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Health, 
Veterans Health Administration
William F. Feeley, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for 
Operations and Management, Veterans Health Administration (Alternate)
Arthur S. Hamerschlag, Chief of Staff, Veterans Health Administration 
(Alternate)
John H. Thompson, Deputy General Counsel
Rita Reed, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget
Jon A. Wooditch, Deputy Inspector General
Robert T. Howard, Executive Director
Kenneth M. Greenberg, Executive Secretary to the Department
Richard Wannemacher, Jr., Senior Advisor, National Cemetery 
Administration

    Dated: September 19, 2006.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 06-8106 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
§ 424.15 Notices of review. ( a ) If the Secretary finds that one of the actions described in § 424.10 may be warranted, but that the available evidence is not sufficiently definitive to justify proposing the action at that time, a notice of review may be published in the Federal Register. The notice will describe the measure under consideration, briefly explain the reasons for considering the action, and solicit comments and additional information on the action under consideration.
( b ) The Secretary from time to time also may publish notices of review containing the names of species that are considered to be candidates for listing under the Act and indicating whether sufficient scientific or commercial information is then available to warrant proposing to list such species, the names of species no longer being considered for listing, or the names of listed species being considered for delisting or reclassification. However, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to a species that is designated as a candidate for listing.
( c ) Such notices of review will invite comment from all interested parties regarding the status of the species named. At the time of publication of such a notice, notification in writing will be sent to State agencies in any affected States, known affected Federal agencies, and, to the greatest extent practicable, through the Secretary of State, to the governments of any foreign countries in which the subject species normally occur.
#### § 42.132 Determining cumulative sum values.

(a) The parameters for the on-line cumulative sum sampling plans for AQL's applicable to origin inspection are as follows:

| Acceptable quality levels | Type of inspection | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Normal | | | Tightened | | | Reduced | | |
| T | L | S | T | L | S | T | L | S |
| 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.95 | 0.35 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1.5 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 |
| 6.5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2.5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |

(b) At the beginning of the basic inspection period, the CuSum value is set equal to the starting value (“S”) for the specified CuSum plan. The CuSum value is then determined for each consecutive subgroup as follows:

(1) Add the number of defects for the present subgroup to the CuSum value of the previous subgroup.

(2) Subtract the subgroup tolerance (“T”).

(3) The CuSum value is reset in the following situations; however, determine portion of production acceptability (see [§ 42.133](/on/2024-09-20/title-7/section-42.133)) prior to resetting the CuSum value:

(i) Reset the CuSum value to zero (0) if the CuSum value is less than zero (0).

(ii) Reset the CuSum value to the acceptance limit (“L”) if the CuSum value exceeds the acceptance limit (“L”).
###### Editorial Note on Part 660

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

#### § 660.407 Treaty Indian fishing.

Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, treaty Indian fishing in any part of the fishery management area is subject to the provisions of this subpart, the Magnuson Act, and any other regulations issued under the Magnuson Act.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

Maggie for NH (Draft A)

)

)

AO 2022-19

CERTIFICATION

I, Vicktoria J. Allen, Acting Deputy Secretary of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on September 14, 2022, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve Draft A TALLY VOTE, as recommended in 

the Memorandum to the Commission dated September 13, 2022.

Commissioners Broussard, Cooksey, Dickerson, Lindenbaum, Trainor, and

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision

Attest:

 September 14, 2022

Date Vicktoria J. Allen

Acting Deputy Secretary of the 

Commission
[No. 2002.]

#### Jesus Hernandez *v.*The State.

Jurisdiction of the District Courts of Kinney and "Val Verde Counties.— The oSense charged in the indictment under which this prosecution and conviction were had was committed, if at all, in the town of Del Bio while that town was comprised within the territorial limits of Kinney county. Subsequent to the presentment of the indictment, but before the trial was had, the county of Val Verde was erected out of that part of the territory of Kinney county which comprised the town of Del Bio, which said county of Val Verde was fully organized when the trial was had. *Held,*that the erection and organization of Val Verde county divested the district court of Kinney county of jurisdiction over the case, and vested such jurisdiction in the district court of Val Verde county; to which court the case should have been transferred.

Appeal from the District Court of Kinney. Tried below before the Hon. T. M. Paschal.

The conviction in this case was for an assault with intent to murder one John Holland, in Kinney county, Texas, on the 2d day of July, 1883. A term of two years in the penitentiary was the penalty assessed against the appellant.

Ho brief for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

On the 2d day of July, 1883, when the assault with intent to murder which is charged in the indictment in this case was committed, Del Kio, the town or place in which it was committed, was as then defined within the territorial limits of Kinney county. By act approved 24th of March, 1884, the nineteenth legislature passed an„act entitled “An act to create the county of Yal Yerde, and to provide for its organization.” (Gen’l laws 19th leg., pp. 48, 49.) That portion of Kinney county which was taken to form Yal Yerde county comprised within its limits the town of Del Rio, where the offense charged was committed. Yal Yerde county had become fully organized before this case was tried, to wit, 18th September, 1885, in the district court of Kinney county.

The question is, Did the district court of Kinney county have jurisdiction to try the case, the indictment having been found in Kinney county before the county of Yal Yerde was created?

Mr. Bishop says: “By the common law crimes are local, to be prosecuted in the county of their commission; only in such county *409can the grand jury inquire of them. Even where a county is divided, a criminal act done before the division is to be prosecuted in the particular new county in which is the place of the offense. The offense is against the State; the trial in the new county.” (7 Bish. Crim. Proc., § 49. See, also, *Nelson*v. *The State,*1 Texas Ct. App., 41; *Weller*v. *The State,*16 Texas Ct. App., 206.)

After the organization of Yal Yerde county the cause should have been transferred to the district court of that county for trial. Because the district court of Iiinney county had lost its jurisdiction of the case in the creation of Yal Yerde county, judgment is reversed and cause remanded that it may be transferred to Yal Yerde county for a new trial.

*Reversed and remanded.*

[Opinion delivered November 18, 1885.]
#### § 70.1 Purpose.

All national fish hatchery areas are maintained for the fundamental purpose of the propagation and distribution of fish and other aquatic animal life and managed for the protection of all species of wildlife.